The Angelic Face of My Doom

And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people. But some men from what was called the Synagogue of the Freedmen, including both Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and some from Cilicia and Asia, rose up and argued with Stephen. But they were unable to cope with the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking. Then they secretly induced men to say, "We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God." And they stirred up the people, the elders and the scribes, and they came up to him and dragged him away and brought him before the Council. They put forward false witnesses who said, "This man incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law; for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us." And fixing their gaze on him, all who were sitting in the Council saw his face like the face of an angel. (Acts 6:8-15 NASB)

 In working through this passage, Stephen's opponents confuse me.  Who are they exactly?  The way the text is grammatically constructed, they are either a group called Freedmen made up of people from Northern Africa and Asia Minor, or they are a group of Freedmen and others from these two regions.  The other thing is the four areas mentioned aren't really close to each other.  Two are from North Africa, and two are from Asia Minor.  It seems an oddly selective group, unless they all have previous slavery in common.  It's possible that Luke just figures his readers will just figure it out.

The other interesting thing about this group is their decision to argue with Stephen.  Why would they take it on themselves if other groups in the city seemed to think so highly of the new group?  The answer may lie in the regions they are from.  Alexandria in particular was regarded as one of the great centers for learning in the whole known world.  This was especially true for Jews for whom there had been for hundreds of years a very respected school there.  It later became a center for Christian learning, and an entire school of early theological thought development is ascribed to the city/region.  Those of that region could have been a source of conflict with this emerging group with Judaism.

That they were slaves actually makes little difference since slaves were often very well educated and used as tutors for the rich.  And in those days it was more an economically defined group rather than racial.  So, this group of former slaves from dispersed regions outside of Judea confront Stephen.  Stephen could very well have been from regions outside Judea as well, adding additional fuel to any such discussion.  But the confrontation failed to overcome Stephen in wisdom of their argument or their spirit with which it was presented.  They were well and good trounced in this public forum.  So they resort to plan B.

Another odd thing about this group is their ability to get the people going on false pretenses.  The two points they bring up that gets the mob rolling are blasphemy against Moses and God.  Once in the court setting, they are more specific about the temple and the law of Moses (or traditions of Moses once it gets right down to it).  While the text implication that they are deceptive (bribing and false witnesses), the argument actually sounds somewhat similar to things of which Jesus was accused, and things He actually taught.

Jesus did prophecy that Jerusalem would be destroyed and how.  He warned His disciples to immediately flee the city when they saw certain things happen signalling its immanent destruction.  He also spoke against the traditions of the elders while on the other hand saying He came to fulfill the law.  So, the confusing false accusation is one that would be difficult to disentangle from what he may have been truly saying, which also may have earned him the punishment coming in the next chapter.  It's one of those situations where, sure he's being lied about, but here the truth wouldn't really help him be acquitted. In that situation, under that stress, and faced with this mob and political power, Stephen looks like an angel; a messenger straight from heaven.  Not what one might expect in someone in that situation.

So, at this point in the story (not venturing into his speech in the next chapter), what is my take-away?  Stephen represents for me an example of someone willing and ready to go to whatever social extreme for his Master.  What I mean by "social extreme" is that he is willing to sacrifice the popularity enjoyed by the Jerusalem church in obedience to his Master.  It's not just his popularity with the people, but after this the whole church is persecuted.  There is no question in his demeanor or attitude, he doesn't back down or soften the message given to him by the Spirit of his Master.  This is the same quality in the apostles in the previous chapter.  They are ready to be completely shut down and killed rather than back off of the message to which they testify.  And they don't consider sacrifice of the whole congregation for this truth a problem. 

What would that mean for the pool of those who claim to believe in Jesus as Savior in the United States of America?  That would be truly shocking to this modern country.  No one does that. I worry about what my decisions might mean for my family, what my obedience might cost others around me.  Stephen and the apostles don't balk at such a cost.  I am worried about what others might think of me if I take a stand on a the uncomfortable truths of Scripture, the uncomfortable character of my Master, and these don't.  I am sad to say, that I am fairly namby pamby when it comes to these things, when compared to Stephen and his church leaders.  I may seem different from a lot of believers in this country, but I don't compare well to believers in other countries.  This church I am a part of (nation-wide group of believers) is sadly weak when it comes to standing for the things of our Master in the public arena.  Some even opt out of that arena altogether.

I see now that I can't.  I have a responsibility to unashamedly obey and stand for the truth of Who Jesus is, and what He is about.  He is about saving a world, including my community.  I should be about that too.  And I should be about these things regardless of the cost.  That's the hard part, or rather hardest part.  It's not like I would do it anyway, I haven't so far and the cost would be negligible.  I hate that!  I can't just write about being sold out to my Master, I have to sell everything within me and have nothing left but Him. 

As I work through my job today, I must sell off what is within me, leaving nothing but my Master dealing with the issues in my job.  As I deal with my daughter, I must sell off what is within me, leaving nothing but my Master dealing with a volatile teenager.  As I interact with my wife, I must sell off all that is within me, any resentments and judgments, and leave nothing but my Master dealing with the woman who has exceeded my dreams.  I need to sell off all that is within me, the fears and selfishness, and leave nothing but my Master to function in my church.  I admit that I must free myself of myself and freely allow my Master to use me to reach into the lives of those around me; on my street, and within my neighborhood.

This is not an easy thing to imagine, let alone accomplish.  This isn't something I can sell on eBay or in a yard sale (what do you think I could get for an addiction?  What's the going rate on selfishness?).  I know that my Master is my only customer for these wares.  He is the only One interested in purchasing such garbage.  But I also know that He uses startling payment, impressive value.  Will I take His immensely precious pearls in exchange for the refuse I hold so dear?  By the way, this is essentially the definition of "Sanctification", in case you were wondering.  And this is a lot less "friendly" than the sterile definition I find in theological dictionaries.  Deep breath.  Well, let's see how far I can go in my spiritual "yard sale" today.

Obedient Priests, Who Would Have Thought?

The word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith. (Acts 6:7 NASB)

Not to make a theological mountain out of a Scriptural mole hill, but priests joining the church is at least interesting.  There are a few cultural things about this that make it more interesting than it might appear.  First, while these were of the tribe of Levi, these had special responsibilities in worship beyond the duties of Levites.   So their position was not guaranteed necessarily simply because they were "Levitical", and joining a group the elders and high priest and his groupies despised was probably not a good career move.

This bad career move was made by a great many priests.  Which indicates to me that this group, hated by the leaders of the people, was popular enough with the people to make joining them safe.  That is about to change with the next few chapters, but it remains the fact that at this point, it's safe enough.  What happens to the priests after the tide and popular opinion turn against the believers?  I'm not sure we're told (at least I'm not at that point in Acts yet).  I believe though that many of the many stayed with the church.  But that's just my opinion at this point.

So what do I take away from this?  Priests weren't the "movers and shakers" in the religious or political world, but they were on the fringe of all that.  They led worship with duties in varying degrees, responsibilities, and duties.  There was something in what they did and who they did it for that was not enough to keep them from Jesus.  In today's terms, these would be associate or assistant ministers in churches, priests without seniority, and so on; not the big cheese, but sample bite-size cheese wedges.  And these guys weren't satisfied.

I suspect that it might have been an existential sort of problem where what they did was no longer "authentic".  The motions they went through in their duties and responsibilities may have become empty and hollow by this time; out of step with the world events around them.  It was a beautiful temple, but it was built (or refurbished) by a non-Jewish leader (long story, and kind of sad).  They sacrificed as God had instructed Moses, but it was obviously a "business" rather than an act of worship.  How could they turn what they did back into the expression of the worthiness of their God it was intended to be?

The irony is that, once they accepted Jesus as the Messiah, these sacrifices could become even less meaningful.  They had been superseded by the immense self-sacrifice of Jesus, the Son of God.  But there were more than just sacrifices taking place; the festivals took on new more full meaning. Yet it is possible that even the sacrifices could become commemoration of what Jesus did once for all.  Depending on how they viewed what they did, their activities could once again be filled with a deeper sense of meaning than they had ever experienced. 

This is the point of contact for me.  It is possible for me to participate in my local body of believers, with my fellow followers of Jesus, and the practices we participate in be filled freshly with meaning.  I'm not an associate minister of anything, and I'm good with that.  But when I go and attend worship, bring my family to join with other believers, can the songs we sing, the prayers prayed, and the words preached become new and alive to me?  Of course!  But only to the degree that I let Jesus, my Master, fill them with this meaning.  It's not so much about how or what we do in practice (although that's important), what church worship should be about for me is declaring loudly and proudly the immense value of my Master to me; declaring that to those around me and to Him.  It's impossible, but the attempt, regardless of the method used, is what transforms me, filling what I do with new, fresh, and powerful meaning.

Worship should completely reset my life for the coming week.  But worship should also be what I spend my time doing throughout the week.  Worship on Sunday should kick off the week, but also culminate the one I just finished.  What I have been doing all week should find final expression as I stand and sit with my fellow worshipers; getting filled again for the days to follow.  As I give my praise and expression of value to my Master, I receive power not my own.  That's true every day, but should be especially true on Sunday.  How refreshing.  I feel better already.  But I suppose a better question might be, how can I help the pastors and ministers serving my fellow believers and me sense and enjoy this refreshment too.  I want them to be those refreshed priests, faithful to Jesus as they work in the temple.  Well, I suppose the first thing I can do is not be a pain in the butt.  The second thing I can do is encourage them at every opportunity.  Hmm, it sounds like I have my marching orders for the day.

Giving the Advantage

Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch. And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:1-6 NASB)

Strife among believers is truly nothing new.  Here it is in the early days of the church in Jerusalem.  And here it happening during the times things are going fairly well.  The church is growing in spite of the threats of the elders of Israel.  The congregation is held in respect by the people.  Signs and wonders accompany declaration that Jesus is both Messiah and Savior.  But life is about to change.

First, they now have this internal strife, which is the part I'm looking at today.   I have said before that I believe that of those visiting Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, many of the believing ones stayed right there in Jerusalem.  This passage sort of supports that view.  Where did these "Hellenistic Jews" come from in such numbers as to have such influence in the congregation?  I believe they are made up of the 3000 added to the church on the day of Pentecost.  One of the things I said about that was that the economy of Jerusalem would probably not easily support such a surge in population very easily.  That is what made the response and attitude of the church to such a huge amount of need so necessary.  But having or acquiring the resources to help doesn't mean that the help will be managed well.

The second way life is about to change for the church has to do with those selected for this ministry.  We only track two, Stephen and Philip, but the implication is that the gospel is about to explode out of Jerusalem.  This is accomplished on the circumstances surrounding these two men.  So, in a very real and obvious way, this chapter sets up Stephen for the major turn in the life of the church.  I'll address that in later entries.

One section of the body of believers (and I suspect a very LARGE section) is being neglected in the distribution of the money laid at the apostle's feet by those selling property.  Their complaint isn't ignored by the apostles.  I believe that part of what is happening to the group dynamic is that, as other believers are added the ratio of Hellenistic Jews to Hebrew (Palestinian Jews) has slipped toward more of a balance.  I doubt they are equal or that the Hebrews out number the Hellenistic Jews, not yet anyway.  But enough of a change has happened that the service to those in need has slipped along "regional" lines.

The apostles decide on a solution where the people choose people to administer the food distribution.  This sounds like a wonderful solution to the people, and the people find seven men.  Here's the odd thing.  These names have meanings in Greek, but not in Hebrew.  What I mean by that is they are not Aramaic or Hebrew transliterations, but actually Greek names.  Philip is the only one with occurrences in other texts besides the Christian Scriptures, but they are still references to either non-Palestinian Jews or Greek/Roman people.  So what?  The seven were Hellenistic Jews, not Palestinian Jews.  Again, so what?  The solution gives away the advantage of administering the ministry to the ones complaining.

Why is giving into the complainers, giving them control over the problem a good idea?  What can I learn from this?  Well, there are lots of lessons probably, but the one I come away with addresses one of my specific issues, control.  When I rely on my Master for a solution, I have to let go my control of it.  I really want to "guide" the solution to one that makes sense to me, but that would act against my faith.  By letting go of solutions, I grow my faith by allowing my Master to stretch it.  I suppose I consider solutions to my problems partly my responsibility or "right", but submission to my Master must include solutions to problems I bring to Him.  I have to leave them with Him to truly act in faith.  And when He presents a solution then I need to accept it without modification.  I'm not entirely comfortable with that.  I suppose that's sort of the point. 

The Variety of Ministry

Now at this time while the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint arose on the part of the Hellenistic Jews against the native Hebrews, because their widows were being overlooked in the daily serving of food. So the twelve summoned the congregation of the disciples and said, "It is not desirable for us to neglect the word of God in order to serve tables. Therefore, brethren, select from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may put in charge of this task.  But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." The statement found approval with the whole congregation; and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch.  And these they brought before the apostles; and after praying, they laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:1-6 NASB)

Well, yesterday and last night went well.  Wednesday was probably the most difficult, but yesterday went very well.  It ended with our small group studying Acts 5, and the conviction about how much like Ananias I am, and little like the apostles.  I couldn't make excuses, I need more faith.  That's all there is to that tune.

In the passage above, there is a word used in a variety of ways, and it's the word from which we derive the office of "deacon".  The word was used in the first century to refer to government ministers (bureaucrats) and waiters.  It means to serve in some way.  In the passage above the twelve apostles use it to refer to the ministry of dispensing food to needy widows, but also to their work with Scripture.

In this text, the apostles want to get back to the "ministry of the word" and prayer rather than "serve tables".  I don't know a pastor who wouldn't love that.  I don't know a pastor who gets to either. 

The element I like so much about this is that ministry can be seen both ways.  I don't think that is common in church as much as it should be.  Perhaps it is a mentality of taking from church rather than giving which influences this problem.  And I can't say that this problem is truly pervasive in every church everywhere.  But where it shows up, it's a problem.

If I can just help people, then I get a public pat on the back, and I feel good.  Sure it takes me out of a comfort zone, and gets me out of my own problems in a very real and important sense.  But if I serve others and neglect striving to understand my Master through Scripture, I end up serving others for wrong reasons.  It eventually becomes about me, I get burned out and discouraged, get judgmental toward others in the church not serving, and so on it goes.  I know that road, and I have seen the end of it.  And it's not happy.

So what is the alternative?  The alternative strives for a focus on Scripture, and service to others from out of that focus.  The leaders of the church devoted themselves to prayer and Scripture.  It had to be their focus in order to effectively lead the people as God directed.  So, my service to others must flow from the same focus.  I lead a small group on Thursday nights.  If I don't do so out of a focus on prayer and Scripture, then I am going to fail (regardless of my goals in leading a small group).

Both prayer and Bible study are needed.  I suffer in prayer to a focus on Scripture.  I need both.  So, on that note, please excuse me as I turn my attention from this, to my Master as I pray.